Musings on and analysis of cultural phenomena from a feminist and Marxist perspective

Friday, July 19, 2013

On Left Unity

A guest post by John Wolfe.

One of the most fraught
topics on the Marxist left is the ideal of “left unity.” We have
all heard it called for more than once, and most hope for it in some
form or other. However, it again and again fails to materialize. The
factionalism of the left remains fodder for bitter jokes within and
amusement from without. Further, we all know whose fault it is—those
other people. “Sectarian,” like “hipster,” is a label that is
never self-applied. This problem is so endemic it is worth analyzing
in some detail, and here I will take a feeble stab at beginning such
an analysis.

Once, in the not-so-distant
past, there was a country known as the USSR heading up a block
of nations experimenting with socialism in one form or another.
Sometimes, as with much of what went on in the Twentieth Century, it
is hard to believe that this actually happened, that a worker's
revolution ushered in a situation where half the world was busily
engaged in trying to build an alternative to capitalism. These
experiments had mixed results to be sure, but at least they were
happening, and happening on a grand scale.

When the USSR
existed, one's choice of party was truly significant. To join an
official communist party was to literally ally oneself with Moscow
and follow their dictates. It was to take a definite side in a war
that was far from cold. Even as Eurocommunism and like developments
made this relationship slightly more distant, the connection with
Moscow remained essential. To join a Trotskyist party, on the other
hand, was to take a stand against the USSR, to join a conspiracy
to either undermine or radically transform (depending on how one
looks at it) the state socialist counties. To join one of the
“Marxist-Leninist” parties that blossomed in the US In the
Seventies was to side with neither Moscow nor its would-be saviors,
but rather to side with a China that was still recognizably
anti-capitalist.

In Republic of SilenceSartre famously states that “We were never more free
than under the German occupation.” This superficially odd statement
simply indicates that substantial freedom requires that one's choices
be recognized as meaningful, that they have real consequences. Under
Nazi occupation the choice to support the resistance or become a
collaborator carried with it life or death consequences for oneself,
one's family, and one's associates. This is the ultimate validation
of political activity.

Before 1991, a leftist's
choice of party had such significance. It represented a substantive
commitment to one or another international movement and, in many
times and places, carried with it a real risk of imprisonment, death,
loss of employment, or any number of bad consequences. Things were
very real indeed.

The situation now, twenty
some years after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, is unrecognizable
by comparison. Despite the recent popular insurrections throughout
Europe, despite the continued existence of many, largely stalled,
guerrilla movements, and despite even the stunningly vibrant and
heartening activities of the Bolivarians, a harsh neoliberal
capitalism reigns throughout the world. The power of labor is in
retreat, and what victories we win are largely Pyrrhic. In this
situation, our activities and theoretical positions have been robbed
of consequences and significance. These days, a communist can't even
get arrested.

In this depressing
situation, in developed nations like the US, leftism becomes more
of a lifestyle than anything else. It is a posture one adopts, of
little more meaning than becoming a goth, listening to dubstep, or
shopping at Whole Foods. Despite one's best intentions, choosing a
side in sectarian debate becomes little more than a way of carving
out a personal identity. For, let's face it, whatever your opinion on
the NEP, the particular historical situation that gave rise to it is
not going to repeat itself, and nothing remotely like that situation
will arise, until we are well into a revolutionary process. Until
then, all activists on the Marxist left are engaged in nearly
identical objectively reformist issue advocacy and labor organization
efforts.

At this point, sectarian “enemies” come to the rescue. They keep the left alive
by convincing its members that their choices are significant. Without
that vocal sectarian opponent attacking everything you hold dear, you
would have to face the harsh fact that no one gives a damn what you
think of the Kronstadt rebellion, and frankly that it does not
matter. However, deep down, we need that—and this is the problem.
Just as Marcuse observed that modern society sustains itself by
creating false needs, I would maintain the left sustains itself by
creating false disputes. We need a way forward that minimizes this. I
hope we can find this way, but all I have seen so far indicates that
that this hope has little foundation.

Sectarian disputes then are
both a pernicious phenomenon self-cannabalizing the left and stunting its effectiveness
and a vital means by which the left sustains itself and avoids
absorption into liberalism. We cannot hope to overcome petty
squabbling until such time as we begin to score real victories. Until
then, the best solution is to realize that there is little harm in
embracing a diversity of tactics, gritting our teeth, and enduring the
unstable mutually-sustaining antagonism we now have.